< September 22	September 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Stafford, convention of Category:People by city in England. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Necrothesp 11:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 12:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Terrorists by nationality (and all nationality based subpages)
• Delete, This article was nominated for deletion in January and reached no consensus. Being that "terrorist" is on wikipedia:words to avoid, this catagory contradicts the better sentiments of our internal discussion and invites anyone to label a controversial figure as a "terrorist". I always get a laugh out of reading a perfectly NPOV article, then getting to the bottom to find that he or she is a terrorist. Listing individuals like this has no purpose other than to say "this is who wikipedia considers to be a terrorist" and completely contradicts the thurough definition given on the terrorism article. Musaabdulrashid 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If terrorism exists, and it does, then there must be terrorists. Just as you can't have murder without murderers, and so on. Even if this category were censored, Wikipedia would still be implicitly labeling people terrorists by their connection to terrorist incidents (unless you censor those too). Mirror Vax 01:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is nominated regularly, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists. This suggests it is not good as a classification. 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There has been more than one failed nomination. Terrorists exist and should be grouped together for convenience. Osomec 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What Osomec said.Noroton 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Convicted terrorists are terrorists just as convicted murderers are murderers. -- Necrothesp 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wikipedia defines murder as "the unjust, immoral and/or illegal killing of another human being". This is a plain statement. Terrorism is defined as a word with 100 different definitions used to give an emotional charge to a statment. Terrorists don't exist until we label them. Terrorist incidents don't exist until we label them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we can do a much better job of explaining modern events without resorting to this sort of name calling. Musaabdulrashid 06:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Conviction by governmental institutions is a weak argument, since those routinely engage in activities that could equally qualify as terrorist (according to the various defs. of the term). As quoted from WP:POINT:

• If you feel that a particular attack should not be called "terrorist"...
  • do argue on the article's talk page that the term "terrorist" is not neutral and should be removed.
  • don't add the word "terrorist" to articles on dozens of other incidents, which only some people :believe constitute "terrorism".

Kosmopolis 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Avi 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an example of systematic bias... who's definition of a terrorist are we using here? Sfacets 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Such a grouping requires citation, and that can't be done with categories. Listify if wanted, but only with specific citations. - jc37 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The by-nationality subcategories have not been tagged, and the parent should not be deleted on its own. NB. The by-nationality categories have been kept previously. Hawkestone 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now tagged all nationality based subcatagories and all other subcatagories containing the word "terrorist" in the title. Musaabdulrashid 06:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Freedom Fighters. Hell no. In all seriousness, Delete.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Terrorism exists. So do terrorists. --Mal 16:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unavoidably subjective. When not subjective, terrorism is frequently like treason, a matter of dates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too subjective..wait till you see who I am going to list. Mwh ahahaha Jasper23 01:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish directors to Category:Danish film directors

• [Merge], as the nominated category only has one name, and he is a Danish film director. GilliamJF 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per nominator. -Toptomcat 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calgary Hitmen players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, empty categories, that will never feature much use as most junior players are not notable until they turn pro. For the few that are, Category:Western Hockey League players will suffice. Also proposing: Category:Prince George Cougars players, Category:Tri-City Americans players and Category:Seattle Thunderbirds players. The four categories have one article combined. Resolute 21:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Merge per nomination. Flibirigit 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many dozens of minor league hockey teams have such categories. It doesn't matter how many entries the category has.--Mike Selinker 11:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Junior hockey is somewhat different, as graduates who later become notable are placed in alumni categories: ie: Category:Calgary Hitmen alumni Resolute 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, right, that debate. Wow, do I wish folks would agree that almuni and current players could just be "players" (like everywhere else), so we wouldn't have these arguments.--Mike Selinker 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia determines who is, or is not notable to be included. Juniors players are not considered notable. The only notable juniors are alumni, and top prospects. Flibirigit 18:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Hindu temples in Eastern India
• Category:Hindu temples in Northern India
• Category:Hindu temples in South India
• Category:Hindu temples in Western India

Merge into Category:Hindu temples in India (for subsequent recategorisation by state). These are informal regions and it makes more sense to divide these up by state of territory, which process has already been started. This matches what is being done for other topic areas, including Category:Buildings and structures in India by state or territory. Indian states and territories have an average population of 30 million and there are umpteen thousand Hindu temples in the country, many of them ancient and spiritually important, so I don't think state level subdivision is excessive. Brammen 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. It makes much more sense to group them by states rather than vague regions. --musicpvm 05:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. utcursch | talk 13:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. David Kernow (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nomination. Comment: Subcategorizing the subsequent 'Hindu temples in India' category into 'Hindu temples in XYZ', where XYZ is the applicable state or union territory, would be a good idea. -Toptomcat 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish immigrants to England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This category only has one member and is inappropriate. Scotland and England are part of the same state so a person who moves from one to the other isn't an immigrant, they have merely relocated. Edton 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - though in the case currently listed it may be inappropriate, Scotland and England have not always been part of the same state and as such it is legitimately populable. Grutness...wha? 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if one accepts that "immigrants from A to B" is a legitimate type of category, which I don't as it's much too detailed, this example is open to misuse. Brammen 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the category can be further populated. It's only within recent centuries that Scotland has been considered an integral part of the United Kingdom by most involved, and there is a definite cultural difference involved. I think it's an appropriate category, as it would help highlight other former Scottish residents who have contributed to the society, culture, politics, and military affairs of England. I, for one, would be interested to find out who else fits in this category. Nevertheless, without a concerted effort to fill the category, it just stands there, somewhat odd and out of place. Captainktainer * Talk 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is nothing about the definition of the word "immigration" which stipulates anything at all about sovereign states. It simply means movement into an area from another area. Please look up any quality dictionary. Even if its meaning was prescribed in such a narrow, political sense, England and Scotland existed as independent sovereign states for approximately 800 years (unified in 927 and 843 respectively). They have only been constituent countries of Great Britain/United Kingdom, for 299 years so far. During those 800 years there were very many notable Scots who emigrated: to England, Ireland, France, Sweden, Central, South and North America... you name it...

Currently the cat is chronically underpopulated, so I will not shed a tear if it is deleted, but there should be no prejudice whatsoever to its recreation: it is a perfectly valid cat (if these "immigrant" cats are really at all useful as a group - which I am not entirely convinced by yet, they seem to just be duplicates of all the hyphenated-fooish people cats.)--Mais oui! 06:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to nominate all of these "immigrant" cats en masse then I may consider voting delete, depending upon the arguments presented. --Mais oui! 06:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV pushing. It is essential that categories focus on defining encyclopedic achievements rather than events which are important in the subject's personal life, but are not encyclopedic. Emigrating from anywhere to anywhere else is not a defining encyclopedic characteristic. As for the historical argument, my rule of thumb is that a category needs to be indisputably appropriate for 90%+ of the relevant articles. Osomec 17:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is emigration from Scotland to England possible...?  David Kernow (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in the same sense as emigration from New York to Florida. Edton 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No passport control in Coldstream. Catchpole 08:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The UK is a single state. Golfcam 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 15:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:00s births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Obsolete category which appears to have been replaced by Category:0s births. I'm terribly sorry if its needed but nothing is listed on its talk page to suggest this. - Tutmosis 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom.--NeilEvans 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as misspelling. >Radiant< 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as above. -Toptomcat 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 15:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Scottish St Johnstone F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, this is overcategorizing. Not a useful category. Punkmorten 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Punkmorten. Coming soon, Category:Hibernian F.C. managers born in France. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • Talk 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, far too specific to be a useful category in its own right. Qwghlm 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Forbsey 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as incredibly silly. -Toptomcat 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Free software, since both names are used. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Note that 7-zip is already in a sub-cat of Free software. --Karnesky 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: RMS will get heart attack. Perhaps a text explaining the ideological differences + link to the "free..." cat would be better than automatic redirect. There have been similar discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_30#Category:Open_source_games (keep separate) or Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_4#Category:Free_and_Open_Source_software_Foundations_-.3ECategory:Free_and_open_source_software_organizations (merge). Pavel Vozenilek 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Keep as is (see below). Open source is NOT equal to free software. Look it up. We have talked about it in a number of my IT classes. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is about Category:Free software and not Category:Freeware. This merge may make sense based on the articles. Personally I find it a bit confusing, but if the consensus thinks the articles are correct then this merge should be OK. Vegaswikian 23:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the clarification. I suggest that the free software category should become a parent category for freeware and open source software. I dislike the name for this parent category. The parent category needs to exist. All articles in the free software category should be merged into the open source software category. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What it looks like, really, is that the 'free software' category should be renamed 'open source software.' -Toptomcat 03:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We've done this before ... Eventually one model was in more than 70 categories and we killed nearly all the model cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Brammen 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 04:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created for a Canadian High School, now properly classed as Category:High schools in New Brunswick. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't think any high school is notable enough to have a category named after it and especially not this one. --musicpvm 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per musicpvm. Twittenham 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already renamed/merged as nominated --Kbdank71 14:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universal films to Category:Universal Pictures films

• Rename, potential confusion between films made by Universal Pictures and films categorised by the BBFC as being "Universal - "suitable for all". Mallanox 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or to Category:Films by Universal Pictures. David Kernow (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic County of Cheshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Ceremonial County of Cheshire

• Procedural nomination based on incorrect speedy tagging and information from Wenslet indicating that the category may have been created by a County Watch vandal. I have no particular strong feelings about the deletion. Update - apparently the category has now been emptied and is a speedy candidate again.Captainktainer * Talk 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too young for ((db-catempty)), it's supposed to be at least four days old ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speedily if empty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete English county boundaries have changed several times, and having more than one version per county is a recipe for confusion (as well as point of view pushing). Brammen 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see also Category:Ceremonial County of Cheshire. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both I have tagged Category:Ceremonial County of Cheshire. Osomec 17:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per User:Brammen. Jhamez84 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oz actors to Category:Oz (fictional region) actors

• Rename, The current category name is ambiguous; on the discussion page, other editors have mentioned this also, though the discussion is currently dead. The category has been confused for actors in the HBO series Oz, as well as the movie The Wizard of Oz. Its intended use is for actors who have appeared in any production set in the land of Oz created by L. Frank Baum. Shannernanner 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename. Good catch. Captainktainer * Talk 14:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Land of Oz actors (discerned from nom). - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considered that, but one of Baum's books is The Marvelous Land of Oz, reprinted as The Land of Oz, and with all the movies, plays, etc., based on his books I think that category name could be easily confused for a specific work rather than the general category it is intended to be. -Shannernanner 07:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps category:Wizard of Oz series actors? (Actually, given that The Wizard of Oz (1939) is the only real notable entry in this series, maybe just call it category:Wizard of Oz actors and purge the rest.)--Mike Selinker 11:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Neither the book series nor any of the films are referred to as part of "The Wizard of Oz series." I do think the current category, though ambiguously named, serves a useful and notable function; it is a sub-category of Category:Oz in stage and film. -Shannernanner 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "Oz (fictional region) actors" be fictional actors...?  David Kernow (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Prefer Category: Actors who have portrayed characters in productions set in the land of Oz? -Shannernanner 08:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the above was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I suppose something like Category:Actors appearing in Oz (fictional region) might be an alternative... although is it possible for actors to appear in a fictional region...? ...!  Yours, David (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As was mine. I suppose Category:Actors appearing in productions set in Oz isn't so bad, however. I don't think it necessarily needs the disambig, as there isn't another region referred to as Oz in this context. -Shannernanner 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...although there is Oz the magazine (and, if I recall, a TV series called Oz). Anyway, torn between accuracy and brevity, for as long as I'm not sure what kind of name would best suit this and similar categories, I'm abstaining. Yours, David (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment considering the ambiguation in various directions, I'd like to (ahem) "humbly" re-suggest category:Land of Oz actors or how about category:Fictional Land of Oz actors (though I still prefer the former, obviously : ) - jc37 05:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, As well as my previous concern regarding the former, both names retain the possible confusion with "fictional actors." I'm not sure why Category:Actors appearing in productions set in Oz would be confused with the HBO series Oz or the magazine Oz, as neither are geographic regions; that is my current vote unless someone has genuine concerns with it, in which case I will go with Category:Actors appearing in productions set in the land of Oz. -Shannernanner 07:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Harvard Law School graduates to Category:Harvard Law School alumni
• Category:Harvard Medical School graduates to Category:Harvard Medical School alumni
• Rename, Graduates->alumni in line with other alumni categories. Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Captainktainer * Talk 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Washington Assessment of Student Learning, to expand. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Heavy metal albums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all into a new sub-category of Category:Heavy metal albums called category:Shape of Despair albums, except And We Are Bled of Color, which should be merged directly into Category:Heavy metal albums, per nom. - jc37 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ....what? -Toptomcat 03:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:ESPN personalities, procedureal due to policy against current/former, due to upkeep issue. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge per nom. - jc37 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Very difficult to do upkeep on categories that are sensitive to temporal issues. Captainktainer * Talk 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No living/dead categories for jobs.--Mike Selinker 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is inappropriate to categorize real people by fictional criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Listify if wanted, as it could be useful information, but too confusing as a category (since it's animation, and "actual" persons' articles are categorized.) - jc37 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify, trivia like "people who appeared on this-or-that show once". >Radiant< 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - it's the sort of thing that's nice to know after you've watched Celebrity Deathmatch, but merely causes excess categorization on articles of real people. Captainktainer * Talk 15:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per the above. >Radiant< 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. All winners are already listed in the Celebrity Deathmatch article. A separate list of winners is unnecessary. --musicpvm 05:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ProveIt. Ohyeahmormons 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Prolog 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete big time Jasper23 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Murdered children. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. (Single entry in category, anyway.) - jc37 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Should probably be expanded with other notable murdered children. Captainktainer * Talk 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wryspy 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. David Kernow (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Golfcam 04:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to avoid confusion with those who have been murdered by children. Saga City 04:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Specialised user block templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Not exactly the ideal category. We shouldn't recognize vandals for thier distruptive behavior, so we shouldn't give them thier own category. I'm nominating all templates in this category for deletion as well. I think this falls under WP:DENY, although it's not a policy. — Moe Epsilon 02:49 September 23 '06
• Delete; aside from DenyRecognition, these templates are redundant with the generic ((indefblockeduser)) where there's a need to tag userpages at all. The category is, by extension, redundant with Category:User indefinitely blocked templates. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you nominated all the templates, then this cat should have been nominated there, rather than here. Also, while the cat itself should likely go, I think at least several of the templates have value, since a few are potentially "ongoing", and thus are rather useful. - jc37 06:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weren't these kept less than a month ago? --tjstrf 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it makes for a good way to find them all in one location ("ease of use") - jc37 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst I am not a staunch WP:DENY supporter (I believe it has merits but is being abused by users and vandal socks alike and I believe LTA pages etc have benefit) I just don't see the point in this category. If you have to think for more than an instant for the answer then chances are they arent being serving us much good at all. Glen 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete 132.248.196.191 04:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Anal porn actress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, categorizing porn stars by acts they engage in is absurd. (And at the very least, it should be named "Anal porn actresses.") —tregoweth (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this act is taboo enough to garner its own category with regard to adult actresses who are apparently known for it. -- TrojanMan 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy correct, no opinion on delete/keep Change the name of the category to 'Anal porn actresses' immediately: go through the normal deletion process for anything stronger. -Toptomcat 03:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't work as a category and cannot be kept up to date. This information fluctuates. Wryspy 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once it would have been useful, but porn these days fairly wallows in anal, and most current actresses do it. Tabercil 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, more useful would be Category:Porn actresses who refuse to do anal. Well, not useful, but you see my point. --Dhartung | Talk 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wryspy and Tabercil. Valrith 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brammen 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with a pornography-related category. Simply makes wikipedia more thorough. -- Freemarket 04:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, categorizing porn stars by specific sex acts cannot be a good idea. --musicpvm 05:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or rename to Category:Anal porn actresses, no strong preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edton 23:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Acts of anal intercourse are mentioned in only a few porn actresses articles. This article is not intended for all pornographic actresses who have engaged in anal intercourse but rather "anal queens" as they are referred to in the porn industry. There are a few other lists of specific sex acts that have not been put up for deletion so why should anal be excluded? Auto erotic performers comes to mind. I dont know how to rename articles but it should be renamed. Maybe Anal Queen would be more appropriate--Onitsuh 08:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This ones should be deleted from two separate perspectives. Either it's a "work-around" to avoid automatic deletion as a model cat, or it's like categorizing all actors who ever did a "spit-take" scene. - jc37 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This topic is not intended for all who have done this specific act but rather "anal queens" as there have only been a handfull who have reached this status in porn.--Onitsuh 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The purpose of an encyclopedia has rather been lost sight of by some users it seems. Hawkestone 12:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps you are referring to those who feel threatened by pornography related historical content?--Onitsuh 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from alternate languages into Category:Redirects from alternative languages
Category:Redirects from alternate names into Category:Redirects from alternative names
Category:Redirects from alternate spellings into Category:Redirects from alternative spellings

Alternative suggestion

Category:Redirects from alternate languages and Category:Redirects from alternative languages into Category:Redirects from other languages

• Snottygobble moved ((R from alternate language)), ((R from alternate name)), ((R from alternate spelling)) to ((R from alternative language)), ((R from alternative name)), ((R from alternative spelling)) respectively. He then deleted Category:Redirects from alternate names and Category:Redirects from alternate languages. The rationale given in the each case was incorrect grammar. The problem is that all the articles in the original categories are still there (alternate names has over 5000). Since the only way I know to fix this is to edit each article and save it without changes so the category change in the template is registered, I undeleted these two categories and am bringing it here. If the merge goes through, I'd think a bot is going to have to clean this up.
  In North American English, one of alternate's definitions is the same as alternative so these templates and categories are not really grammatically incorrect. However, I think alternative is clearer all around. My recommendation is that the template redirects stay and that the alternate categories be merged to the new alternative ones.
  The CFD directions state that TFD should be used for categories populated by templates, but the directions seem to be for when the template should be deleted also. Since I'm recommending we keep the templates, this seems a better place. Let me know if that was wrong. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please clarify what was done (the from/to in your explanation look the same to me). Also, "alternate" would be the correct usage in this case. An alternate name, not an alternative name. Alternative is not used as an adjective, while alternate can be used both as a noun and adjective. His alternate; His alternate name. - jc37 01:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the alternative in the template move description above. Alternative is both a noun and an adjective[1][2]. Alternate meaning the same as alternative seems to be considered non-standard in British English[3][4]. Both words are correct, but we shouldn't have both as categories. I don't particular care which one, but would lean towards alternative since its standard on both side of the pond (reduces the possibility of this happening again). However, alternate would be less changes so it would be quite reasonable to keep. -- JLaTondre 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved each of these templates and categories from "alternate" to "alternative", on the understanding that "alternate" is incorrect. I double checked against my dictionary, and triple checked against Fowler, and all indications were that the use of "alternate" when "alternative" is intended is clearly incorrect and a common grammatical gotcha. Judging from the comments above, this is not the case in U.S. English. I apologise if I am guilty of imposing British English on the 'pedia; if I had known that "alternate" is correct in this context according to U.S. English, I would not have been so bold. Given that what is done is done, I do think that "alternative" is better, since there are a lot of people out there who will think that "alternate" is just plain wrong. Therefore, delete the "alternate" categories. Snottygobble 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's sounding as if "alternate" is better for US, and "alternative" is better for British. TYpically, we try to standardise (-ize : ) through out an article, so we should "pick one" for this as well. I think "alternate" is better (an alternate ending), but I think it will just come down to concensus of preference. (Unless there is some policy/guideline out there that I've missed : ) - jc37 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding is that "alternative" is acceptable to and understood by speakers of either dialect, whereas "alternate" is acceptable to speakers of U.S. English but seems like an embarrassing gaffe to speakers of British English. Is there any evidence for the claim that U.S. English favours "alternate" over "alternative" in this context? Snottygobble 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree that alternate is better for the US. For example, alternative energy[5] is much more widely used then alternate energy[6]. Perhaps it is a regional thing, but alternative sounds just fine to me. -- JLaTondre 13:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • An "alternate" is an "other" member of a queue or some other sub-set. You have something "as an alternative". An alternative energy source, for example. You select an alternate plan from the listed alternatives. You don't select an alternative plan from the listed alternates (ugh at that latter sentence : ) So R from an alternate language, (from a different language) not R from an alternative language (from an alternative source). R from language alternatives does not equate to R from an alternate language. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Two points. Firstly, I don't follow you; how exactly is your use of "alternate" in "alternate plan" different from your use of "alternative" in "alternative energy"? These seem grammatically equivalent to me, yet I think you're arguing that they are grammatically different in some way. Secondly, can you provide a source for this? No offense, but I've never heard or read anything like what you're saying, and suspect that it may be your unique take on the situation. Snottygobble 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is MediaWiki Bug 5382. Snottygobble 04:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it's a regional grammar difference, we don't need to screw around with it, and it'll just generate more botwork. --tjstrf 04:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! There won't be any botwork. Because updating the link table is such a big job, it is not executed immediately. Instead it has been placed in MediaWiki's asynchronous job queue. If we all find something else to work on for a few days, this will automagically resolve itself. Snottygobble 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe this is true. Help:Category still states "Note that the usual update problems apply -- if you change the categories inside a template, the categories of the referring pages won't be updated until those pages are edited." Bug 5382 talks about this problem and it's still listed as open. Special:Statistics shows the job queue at 0 and none of the pages have yet moved categories though it's been 5 days since you changed the templates. -- JLaTondre 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right. It was me that reopened the bug myself, after discovering the same information independently. Snottygobble 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A solution: Use the word "other", instead of "alternate" or "alternative" to avoid nuances between the latter two words. Peter O. (Talk) 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great idea. However, I think "another" is more appropriate : ) - jc37 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Redirects from other languages" is appropriate in this context, rather than "Redirects from another language". —Phil | Talk 08:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Snottygobble 12:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative suggestion, but only for languages. Support original suggestion for spellings and names. —Phil | Talk 08:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care which word, but it should be consistent across all three. -- JLaTondre 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish market towns to Category:Market towns in Scotland

• Rename, I believe the proposal to be the naming convention. Saga City 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename - What are the criteria for entry in this category? "Market town" is not a commonly used designation in Scotland, and its meaning is unclear (medieval markets or modern ones?) The nearest WP:Verifiable concept would be settlements with mercat crosses, therefore I propose that the cat be renamed to Category: Settlements with mercat crosses (Not all are "towns" - "burgh" would be the more accurate descriptor - many are either cities or villages). --Mais oui! 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to delete, per Angusmclellan below. --Mais oui! 16:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename- I agree with Mais Oui to a certain extent. However considering that all Cities in Scotland are Burghs. Could this not be a category of Category: Towns of Scotland -(touns maybe!)-, with the sub categories, of Category: Royal Burghs of Scotland, and Category: Burghs of Barony in Scotland for instance.Brendandh 09:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that the cat be renamed to "burghs", just that "burgh" is the correct descriptor if we are referring to medieval settlements. What I was pointing out is that places with mercat crosses vary widely in size (from tiny villages, right up to Glasgow), so "Settlements with mercat crosses" is a better title than "Towns with mercat crosses". Category:Royal burghs already exists ("in Scotland" is redundant - nowhere else has them) and we could, I suppose, create a category for the Burgh of barony article, but is that really necessary at this point? Anyway, those are not the issue at this CfR.--Mais oui! 10:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename Category:Market towns in Scotlandshire. On second thoughs, delete as any or all of confusing/unnecessary/imprecise/terminologically alien. If Category: Burghs of Barony is a good idea or not, I don't know, but that doesn't make any difference to this cat. Pretty much unpopulated anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If it helps to move this on. As it seems to be agreed the category should not exist in its present form I'll happily alter Rename to Delete as my original proposal would be equally at odds with Scottish usage. It cannot be allowed to persist in its present form. Saga City 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn (would have been no consensus). Runcorn 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Rename:

• category:Fictional abilities to category:Fictional superhuman abilities

This is to clarify the category name, which is designed for sci-fi and super powers. (The ability to swim, to roller-skate, etc should not be thought to be part of this category. : ) - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some abilities in this section are not superhuman, but are fictional. Examples include the Vulcan nerve pinch (theoretically learnable by any ordinary human) and the Shoyryuken uppercut (again, a martial arts maneuver learnable by humans). -Toptomcat 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. These superhuman ability category have so many problems with them. Let's at least make this catch-all more accurate. Wryspy 04:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think you're both right. Withdrawing the nomination, and creating category:Superhuman powers to be a sub-cat of the former. - jc37 05:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

• category:Fictional characters by special ability to category:Fictional characters by superhuman power

This is related to the other fictional chararacter powers nominations below. The idea is to standardise the use of "power" rather than "ability" in order to remove confusion. For example, category:Fictional aviators is included under category:Fictional characters who can fly. While that is true, this opens the category up to anyone who was on a plane, or used a Legion flight ring, or any other device that allows flight. Since the category is about characters (a subcategory of category:Fictional characters), the abilities should be character abilities, rather than abilities stemming from devices. (Which may or may not be worthy of their own categories, but that's beyond the scope of this nomination.) Using "superhuman" in order to differentiate between Fictional abilities (such as Fictional linguists - of which "polyglot" is a notable ability), and actual superhuman powers (compare to: Superhuman strength).- jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wryspy 04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per norm. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not all the powers listed can be classed as supehuman. Maybe a better category would be Fictional characters by non-human power--NeilEvans 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list some examples of which ones you don't see as "superhuman"? Note, I include all psionic/magic/super powers as "superhuman" for this categorisation. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no change --Kbdank71 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Fictional empaths - no change
• category:Fictional technopaths - no change
• category:Fictional telepaths - no change

These are actual terms, and not neologisms (as far as I know, though the techno- one is questionable). In addition, it's clearer, especially in the case of empath, which is much more accurate to the powers inherent than saying "with empathy". - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No change as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

• category:Fictional characters with super strength to category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength
• category:DC Comics characters with super strength to category:DC Comics characters with superhuman strength
• category:Marvel Comics characters with super strength to category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength

Matching the article name: Superhuman strength. - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nominator - 00:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHFTC (talk • contribs)
• Rename them ALL to category:Fictional characters with superhuman strength. The DC and Marvel characters are already categorized as DC and Marvel characters, thereby making category:DC Comics characters with superhuman strength and category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength just plain redundant. Wryspy 04:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think the idea was to lessen the size of the main category (and thus making it more manageable/readable by having these two subcats. - jc37 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Superhuman is inappropriate in many cases because these are fictional characters and many are not human - Superman and Martian Manhunter, just to name two. CovenantD 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not suggesting that we call it: "Humans with superhuman strength". The strength is of a superhuman level, no matter it's the strength of a martian, kryptonian, or someone bitten by a radioactive spider : ) - jc37 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per norm. Just as long as no one can add Captain America or Black Panther. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If you're doing research only within a particular universe, knowing about the other universe's fictional heroes with similar powers isn't all that helpful. Also, until we meet other sentient races, categorizing fictional heroes by their relation to the human baseline is quite appropriate. Captainktainer * Talk 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Superhuman" is clearer than "super." And as the captain said, if you're looking at DC characters you don't need to know about the vampires on Buffy, who are in another subcategory of "super strength." --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

• category:Fictional precognitive characters to category:Fictional characters with precognition
• category:Fictional psychokineticists to category:Fictional characters with telekinesis
• category:Fictional characters with spiritual awareness - unchanged

...with the power to...:

• category:Fictional duplicators to category:Fictional characters with the power to duplicate themselves
• category:Fictional characters who can fly to category:Fictional characters with the power to fly
• category:Fictional characters with healing powers to category:Fictional characters with the power to heal
• category:Fictional shapeshifters to category:Fictional characters with the power to shapeshift
• category:Fictional speedsters to category:Fictional characters with the power to move at superhuman speeds
• category:Fictional teleporters to category:Fictional characters with the power to teleport
• category:Fictional elasticists to category:Fictional characters with the power to stretch themselves
• category:Fictional reality warpers to category:Fictional characters with the power to warp reality

...with the power to manipulate...:

• category:Fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate darkness or shadow
• category:Fictional earth manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate earth
• category:Fictional electricity manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate electricity
• category:Fictional pyrokineticists to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate fire
• category:Fictional ice manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate ice or cold
• category:Fictional light manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate light
• category:Fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields
• category:Fictional plant manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate plants
• category:Fictional time manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate time
• category:Fictional hydrokineticists to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate water
• category:Fictional weather manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate weather
• category:Fictional wind manipulators to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate wind

likely additions:

• category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate gravity - (at time of nomination does not yet exist)
• category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate sound - (at time of nomination does not yet exist)

For disambiguation. These are all sub-categories of category:Fictional characters by special ability (See that nomination above), which is a sub-category of category:Fictional characters. Important words: Fictional, character, power, manipulate. This also removes the various neologisms (including the -kineticist ones), and broadens the categories to other origins of the character utilizing the specific power (magic or whatever). - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all slightly modified- 'fictional characters with the power to stretch and reshape themselves' is better in that particular case (see Plastic Man). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHFTC (talk • contribs)

Not all can reshape themselves, so the "and" would be inaccurate. - jc37 00:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty of thinking of one who doesn't. Plastic Man does it all the time. Elastic Man has formed his hands into hammers and such. Reed Richards has become a near-liquid. Elastigirl makes herself into a parachute and motorboat. Can you name a counterexample? -Toptomcat 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic Lad (Jimmy Olsen), Elongated Man (through drinking gingold), Madame Rouge (enemy of the Doom Patrol), Flatman (comics), Bouncing Boy (of the LSH), just for a few examples. - jc37 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elongated Man actually can change his shape (that's who I was thinking of when I said 'Elastic Man'), and the only incarnation of Rouge I have any experience with (the Teen Titans animated version) is a definite shapechanger, but I'll concede the point of Elastic Lad, Flatman, and BB. -Toptomcat 03:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per WP:NOT. People shouldn't make up words for Wikipedia categories. A number of those words appear nowhere outside Wikipedia or sources that pulled them from Wikipedia. I'm not sure the word "manipulate" is accurate in every case, though. Some characters can generate fire, for example, but not otherwise manipulate it. That said, though, I'd nonetheless support every one of these alternative names over the abominations they're presently titled. Wryspy 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all but sound. Sound is stupid. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Even in the case of superheroes who can only create a particular substance, the distinction is small enough that it's unimportant for categorization purposes. Captainktainer * Talk 14:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in the interests of being concise, could we not replace "with the power to" simply with "able to". Mallanox 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No, for the reasons listed above. Ability to (able to) isn't clear enough and opens the category up to mundane anilities, rather than psionic/super/magic powers, which the categories are designed to comprise. "Power" in this case is the clear disambiguating word. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are subcats of Fictional characters by special ability, mundane abilities shouldn't be in there anyway. Mallanox 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I agree that words shouldn't simply be made up, the new designations given are little better due to the fact that they are almost all horribly unwieldy, and some of the words used were valid words. The change complicates more than it corrects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.243.45.100 (talk • contribs)
• I was a bit surprised when my suggestion to make "Fictional aviators" and "fictional birds" a subcategory of "Fictional characters who can fly" was taken seriously. What about the penguins?? I prefer "Fictional characters with _(fire, earth, spinach)_ powers" -- per Wryspry ("manipulate" sometimes innacurate -- Black Canary screams really loud, she doesn't "manipulate" sound. Songbird does, but "sound powers" + "energy constructs" covers it). Rename thus or per nom. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These renames are waaaay too complicated, "Fictional characters with superspeed" is nice and short, it doesn't needlessly use up real estate. It's almost as if you were competing to see who could create a category with the highest word count. --68.80.95.27 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was just thinking. Does anyone maybe think Category:Fictional psychokineticists should be renamed Category:Fictional characters with telekinesis, since TK is a more widely used term within fiction as opposed to psychokinesis which is a term used by self-appointed "professionals" on the "subject". ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds right to me. editing the nom.- jc37 13:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do the category names really need to be so absurdly long? Do whatever with them, but those are some really long titles. --tjstrf 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, definitely too long. As is, Rename "Who can fly", and "telekinesis", but oppose and suggest renominating the others with shorter, more accurate names. (No "manipulate," basically.) Strong oppose for "Category:Fictional characters with healing powers" - that's probably the form the others should take. ("Power to heal" also sounds vaguely... religious..?) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Those are too long. --(trogga) 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added "option 2" alternatives that I think would address the narrowness of "manipulate" and the length issues. Yes? No?--HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I understand the wish for brevity, probably not a good idea, since they weren't originally tagged that way, and I don't think it's a "minor" change to the nom. If this nom fails/has no concensus, we can always relist with those. Removing them for clarity. Though personally, I don't think "earth powers" or "time powers" (etc) is as accurate. - jc37 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, you're right. I wanted to avoid the necessity of relisting them later, but it's late in the game for that. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS`

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

• category:Fictional lygokineticists to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy

This becomes an umbrella category for the various kinds of energy manipulations as listed in List of comic book superpowers. - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Get rid of these made-up words in our category names. Wryspy 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, most users won't understand an obscure term like "lygokinesis". >Radiant< 09:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially since I think a Wikipedian may have just made it up. Rename. If it's becoming an umbrella category, should "characters with the power to create constructs and force fields" be a subcategory? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly am not certain at this stage (this large set of noms fried my brain : ) - but I think it's definitely worth discussing on this category's talk page. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and split to Category:Fictional characters with energy projection powers (or "blast" powers) and Category:Fictional characters with the power to create energy constructs (which will include everything from force field bubbles to Kyle Rayner's dinosaurs and cybernetic samurai) ... and possibly "Power to absorb or convert energy." No to umbrella categories. Category distinctions based on the current list are unnecessarily complex, narrow, and overlapping. --HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was option A as nominated (someone else will need to take care of it, I don't know what subcats to put them in; let me know when it's done and I'll delete the cat) --Kbdank71 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.) Merge:

• category:Fictional elementals to the appropriate sub-categories of category:Fictional characters by special ability (category:Fictional characters by superhuman power as nominated above), and Listify categorised elementals to List of fictional elementals, for citation/explanation.

OR
B.) Rename:

• category:Fictional elementals to category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate the elements

This becomes an umbrella category for the sub-categories of fictional characters who manipulate the elements, and becomes a sub-category of category:Fictional characters by special ability (category:Fictional characters by superhuman power as nominated above).

The trouble is that there were/are many definitions of what consists of an element, and it's an additional categorisation level that might lessen "ease of use". (Note that the "ice characters" sub-category is listed in both.) This is further complicated due to elemental, which is different than being able to manipulate the elements. (To reiterate from above: due to the complexity of this nom, please do not depopulate/populate the category during this CfD.) - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Listify (the first option) is my preference. - jc37 00:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While I agree that quite a number of characters listed as elementals are not elementals and that category has grated me for quite some time, surely we can come up with an alternative that's more concise than category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate the elements. And I agree with Jc37, we don't have a good operational definition of elements here. (Again, I still prefer the suggested replacement title over the original.) Wryspy 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify, with the expansion of the other superpower categories this one has become redundant. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Just for clarity for the closing admin) - then that's a support of option "A"? - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, merge it, get rid of it. And make a list of actual "elementals" (by the definition HKMarks gives just below). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I always thought of an "elemental" as, like, a water spirit or wood nymph or something. Which is apparently what the elemental article says it is. So:

1. Give the category a better definition, reflecting the meaning of "elemental." Currently Dusk is in the elemental category. What??
2. Recategorize articles to appropriate "powers" categories.
3. No "Element powers" umbrella. Different cultures have different ideas of the classical elements. Then there are the scientific elements. ---HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 05:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nod, that's essentially option "A". Sounding like we agree. - jc37 13:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.